O

ver 
the 
past 
few 
months, 
ChatGPT 
has 
dominated 
the 
conversation around artificial 
intelligence 
and 
machine 
learning. The model comes 
close to, and in some cases 
surpasses, 
the 
capabilities 
of humans to communicate 
and 
produce 
high-quality 
writing. Much of the debate 
around ChatGPT is focused on 
how it will impact university 
students and professors. With 
the benefits of AI, though, 
come the risk that ChatGPT 
will be used for cheating — 
something 
professors 
and 
University administrators are 
already moving to address. It 
is incumbent on the University 
of Michigan to take steps 
now to maintain the ability of 
professors to evaluate students, 
while ensuring that graduates 
are 
not 
left 
behind 
their 
AI-familiar peers. 
It should be noted 
that ChatGPT has many 
practical uses for both 
students and instructors 
that 
remain 
outside 
the realm of cheating. 
As the model is still 
occasionally 
prone 
to 
giving incorrect answers 
to tests of reasoning, 
tasking 
students 
to 
correct 
the 
mistakes 
made by ChatGPT allows 
them 
to 
understand 
common errors that even 
a chatbot may make.
Students 
can 
also 
use ChatGPT to better 
comprehend 
their 
assignments. 
When 
it 
comes to long, dense 
readings where didactic 
jargon 
abounds, 
the 
chatbot 
can 
help 
summarize 
and 
explain 
concepts to the student. This 
can also be applied to code, 
where 
a 
student 
can 
ask 
ChatGPT to explain a certain 
chunk of code or where an 
error was made.
ChatGPT’s usefulness is not 
limited to tests of reason or 
code; it can also be a helpful 
resource 
for 
writing 
and 
discussion without doing all 
the student’s work. OpenAI’s 
essay outline feature provides 
topics 
of 
discussion 
and 
counterargument, 
as 
well 
as a structure a student may 
not consider. Simply chatting 
with the bot can even act 
as a jumping off point for 
inspiration and creation. With 
ChatGPT’s ability to generate 
prompts, debate ideas and give 
suggestions, there is certainly 
no shortage of positive aspects 
to this technology that we can 
embrace in the classroom.
Though ChatGPT can be 
a helpful tool in assisting 
students with their schoolwork, 
some of the tasks that it can 
help with go beyond assistance, 
such as writing full essays 
and solving schoolwork. This 
capability of ChatGPT creates 

complications for professors 
to ensure academic integrity 
on the assignments they task 
students with.
If students misuse ChatGPT 
as a means to cheat, rather 
than as an educational aid, 
the integrity and meaning of 
work assigned by professors 
can 
become 
compromised. 
ChatGPT, while being a very 
valuable 
tool 
in 
learning, 
begins to diminish some of 
the key aspects of learning by 
completing tasks intended to be 
completed solely by students. 
Alongside 
its 
ability 
to 
complete tasks for students, 
ChatGPT also creates problems 
as a continuously evolving AI 
model. Although it is currently 
still being officially updated 
by its developers, OpenAI’s 
goal for the AI in its public 
testing is to train it to update 
its own policies, making it self-
updating to an extent.
ChatGPT’s 
continuous 
updates create new problems 
for 
educational 
institutions, 
including the University of 

Michigan. At the forefront 
of these problems is how the 
University can keep up with 
an AI that is continuously 
evolving at a rate that may be 
difficult to keep up with. To do 
this, changes must be made to 
the way classes are structured.
The drawbacks and benefits 
of ChatGPT aside, it is clear that 
the growth and development 
of AI technology is unlikely 
to slow down anytime soon. 
So, where does that leave 
educational institutions, and 
more importantly, professors, 
for whom the task of genuine 
work grows bigger everyday?
Interestingly, 
with 
the 
pandemic 
leading 
to 
an 
unprecedented rise in the use 
of digital resources inside and 
outside the classroom, there is 
a belief that people are simply 
learning at a slower rate than 
before. Although not the most 
robust piece of evidence, a 
decrease in the average score 
of standardized tests since 
the start of the COVID-19 
pandemic, 
and 
subsequent 
increased 
use 
of 
remote 
learning, could be an example 
of 
the 
inverse 
relationship 
between learning outcomes and 

remote learning. Regardless, it 
isn’t too far-fetched to suggest 
that 
an 
over-reliance 
on 
technology and the increased 
difficulty 
of 
professors 
to 
keep students engaged during 
remote learning has led to a 
learning loss. 
In what could be a pivotal 
moment 
in 
the 
education 
industry, teachers are being 
challenged 
to 
combat 
this 
phenomenon while technology, 
especially EdTech, grows at 
an exponential rate. However, 
it is crucial to emphasize 
here that there is no one right 
solution. Whether instructors 
want to incorporate ChatGPT, 
and technologies of a similar 
ilk, within their syllabi or 
discourage their usage, there 
are multiple avenues to explore, 
each with its own pros and 
cons. 
We believe that frequent, 
low-stakes, 
in-person 
tests, 
in the form of short quizzes 
or assignments at the end of 
every class or week is a good 
way to keep students in the 
classroom and attentive. 
That way, even if students 
are 
using 
ChatGPT 
to 
assist them with their 
assignments, 
they 
are 
still held responsible for 
understanding the most 
important 
concepts. 
Coupling that with courses 
that are more discussion 
and participation based 
might further encourage 
students 
to 
interact 
with the material in a 
meaningful way. 
Furthermore, in order to 
harness the advantages of 
having such technology at 
our disposal, universities 
could 
consider 
having 
more 
courses 
catered 
towards the ethics of AI 
and AI literacy, as the key 
to avoiding the pitfalls of 
a resource like ChatGPT is 
knowing how to use it. Those 
pursuing majors like computer 
science could potentially have a 
required class addressing such 
topics to ensure that colleges 
are handing degrees to students 
who are not only capable, but 
also responsible in the fields in 
which this technology is most 
prominent. 
Regardless of how all the 
potential 
advantages 
and 
complications this technology 
will bring to the classroom 
balance out — or don’t balance 
out — the onus of using it 
responsibly will be on students. 
Software and applications that 
can help students sidestep the 
honor code or find the easy 
way out in a class have always 
existed, such as translators 
for foreign language classes 
or just a simple Google search. 
The choice of whether or not to 
use them, however, has always 
been with students — and that 
was true long before ChatGPT. 
What it comes down to, as it 
always has, is how we want to 
shape our educational journey. 
AI technology has the ability 
to expand our knowledge and 
skill sets, but only if we use it 
correctly and with integrity.

Regardless of how 
all the potential 
advantages and 
complications this 
technology will bring to 
the classroom balance 
out — or don’t balance 
out — the onus of using 
it responsibly will be on 
students.

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, February 8, 2023

From The Daily: How should we let 
ChatGPT change education?

L

ast 
Wednesday, 
Gov. 
Gretchen 
Whitmer 
endorsed a series of 
policy proposals in the first 
State of the State address of her 
second term. Underlying the 
speech, and many of the policy 
proposals, was a continued 
emphasis on bipartisanship — 
that is, on policy expected to 
receive support from members 
of both parties. Whitmer relied 
on bipartisanship during her 
first term, when Michigan’s 
state legislature was controlled 
by Republicans. In her first 
term, bipartisanship worked 
— it brought about many of 
the successes she mentioned 
in her speech while bolstering 
her 
reelection 
prospects; 
from those successes came 
the first Democratic trifecta 
since 1982 and a $9.2 billion 
budget 
surplus. 
But, 
with 
those in hand, Whitmer and 
Michigan Democrats must not 
waste these increasingly rare 
opportunities 
(the 
surplus 
and the majority) on moderate 
policies they think will draw in 
some bipartisan support. 
Whitmer’s first set of policy 
proposals, as laid out in the 
State of the State, centered 
on 
supporting 
working 
Michiganders. It included two 
tax cuts, one for the working 
poor and one for seniors, and an 
endorsement of universal pre-
kindergarten for 4 year olds.
Whitmer began the address 
with a swipe at the “retirement 
tax,” a 4.25% tax on retirement 
savings, 
including 
pensions, 
401(k) plans and IRAs that she 
has been denouncing for 12 
years. The governor’s office has 
estimated this tax cut will cost 
the state $350 million to $500 
million and will save 700,000 
seniors $1,000 a year. This tax 
cut, though, will only benefit 
seniors and those who have 
retirement savings. 
In 
the 
past 
40 
years, 
traditional pension plans — in 
which employers save money for 
their employees’ retirement — 
have been largely replaced with 
401(k) accounts, placing the 
onus of saving for retirement on 
individual workers. At the same 
time, the rate of retirement 
savings has stagnated for all but 
the older generations, leaving 
many 
younger 
generations 
underprepared for retirement. 
In other words, eliminating the 
retirement tax would squander 
some of the budget surplus 
on 
those 
fortunate 
enough 
to have retirement savings. 
Instead, funding could be put 
toward a safety net for seniors 
who lack adequate savings — 
something that would benefit 
younger generations struggling 
to prepare for retirement and 
seniors struggling to make ends 
meet. 
Whitmer 
also 
endorsed 
expanding 
the 
Working 
Families Tax Credit, a state-
level version of the federal 
Earned Income Tax Credit, 
which allows families with low 
incomes to receive a large tax 
refund. While Whitmer notes 
that 
increasing 
the 
WFTC 
would give “$3,000 to 730,000 
working people” it is important 
to note that the majority of 
that — around $2,500 — comes 

from the federal government. 
In other words, Whitmer’s 
proposed policy would increase 
the WFTC from around $150 to 
$450 and give working families 
only a few extra hundred 
dollars a year. 
Though giving hardworking 
families any extra assistance 
is a worthy cause, expanding 
only the WFTC excludes a 
significant portion of families 
experiencing 
poverty: 
those 
that do not have income. The 
unemployment rate is one of 
the strongest correlates with 
the poverty rate. Many people 
in poverty are not required to 
(and therefore do not) file taxes, 
because their income is too low. 
But the EITC only helps people 
who both have an income and 
file taxes. It is ironic that, when 
speaking on policy intended 
to help households in poverty, 
Whitmer 
decided 
to 
quote 
President Ronald Reagan, who 
referred to the EITC as “the 
best anti-poverty, the best pro-
family, the best job creation 
measure.” It was Reagan and 
President Bill Clinton — whose 
campaign was quoted later in 
the speech — who dismantled 
cash welfare, adding in work 
requirements 
that 
virtually 
excluded those who could not 
find work from receiving aid. 
Whitmer’s two main tax 
proposals target benefits at 
groups that independent voters 
might believe deserve them — 
the working poor and retirees. 
The proposals are moderate, 
and Whitmer first endorsed 
both of them years ago, when 
unified Democratic control of 
Michigan seemed impossible. 
That is no longer the case. 
Democrats have an opportunity 
to use their majority and the 
budget surplus to build a more 
inclusive 
social 
safety 
net 
and address social issues that 
may be less directly related to 
economics. 
On the few social issues 
Whitmer 
did 
discuss, 
the 
Republican 
response 
was 
negative. 
When 
Whitmer 
endorsed 
state-subsidized 
universal 
pre-kindergarten 
for 4 year olds, she was met 
with 
strong 
applause 
from 
her 
Democratic 
colleagues 
and silence from Republicans. 
The 
same 
happened 
when 
she 
touched 
on 
repealing 
Michigan’s 
archaic 
1931 
abortion law (at 27:44) and 
expanding the Elliott-Larsen 
Civil Rights Act (at 29:28) — 
even when framing the latter 
issue as a means to bolster job 
creation (“bigotry is bad for 
business”). These are the sort 
of issues Whitmer should be 
focusing on: more partisan 
policies 
that 
will 
only 
be 
addressed 
when 
Democrats 
hold power.
To make matters worse, the 
Republican response to the 
State of the State was quite 
negative, 
despite 
Whitmer 
avoiding 
overt 
partisanship. 
House Minority Leader Matt 
Hall, 
R-Richland 
Township, 
criticized 
the 
content 
of 
Whitmer’s speech, specifically 
the lack of attention paid 
to infrastructure: “She still 
has no real plan to fix the 
roads,” Hall said in a press 
release. 
Whitmer 
had 
an 
entire section of her speech 
dedicated to infrastructure, in 
which she noted the success 

her administration has had in 
repairing Michigan roads. Hall 
himself has already assembled 
a team “to evaluate Republican 
losses in November and get the 
caucus in a position to regain 
the majority.” 
In making efforts to appeal 
to 
Republican 
priorities, 
Whitmer barely touched on key 
Democratic planks, including 
issues many young voters came 
out to vote for. The phrase 
“climate change” was uttered a 
total of one time, relegated to a 
single paragraph at the very end 
of her speech. Whitmer did not 
mention her intention to repeal 
Michigan’s Right-to-Work law, 
something 
she 
campaigned 
on and which has supposedly 
been a key priority for state 
Democrats in the decade since 
its passage. It wasn’t just Right-
to-Work, she avoided workers’ 
rights issues entirely — even 
failing to mention the ongoing 
fight over whether Michigan’s 
minimum wage would increase 
from $10.10 to $13.03 (which 
will likely move to the Michigan 
Supreme Court). It was the 
Republican-led legislature that 
adopted a petition initiative to 
increase the minimum wage to 
$12 by 2022 and then amended 
it to push the wage to 2030. 
In his response to the State 
of the State, Senate Minority 
Leader Aric Nesbitt focused 
on Whitmer’s apparent lack of 
bipartisanship in her first term. 
“Time and again, this governor 
has vetoed bipartisan proposals 
to provide real relief for those 
in need,” Nesbitt said. Despite 
Whitmer 
almost 
entirely 
avoiding controversial policies, 
Nesbitt portrayed Whitmer as 
a partisan and hoped that “the 
governor will realize that she 
was wrong and finally be a part 
of bipartisan efforts.” 
State Republicans do not 
want 
to 
pass 
Whitmer’s 
proposals, 
as 
moderate 
as 
they may be. If Republicans 
wanted to expand the WFTC 
or eliminate the pension tax, 
they would have done it when 
they controlled the legislature. 
Today, with thin Democratic 
majorities, Republicans see an 
opportunity to stall legislation 
for two years. They see the 
same 
thing 
Republicans 
in 
the 117th U.S. Congress saw: 
the opportunity to prevent 
Democratic 
majorities 
from 
bringing 
about 
extensive, 
meaningful change.
Michigan Democrats have 
comparably 
slim 
majorities 
as national Democrats did in 
2021. What they don’t have 
is a 60% threshold to end 
a filibuster; only a simple 
majority is required to end 
discussion on a particular law. 
With a bit of party unity, state 
Democrats can pass just about 
any piece of legislation they 
want, in spite of Republican 
obstinance. Democrats need 
to act early in the term, before 
the 
next 
election 
season, 
before contentious, polarizing 
national campaigns make their 
way to Michigan. They have the 
institutional power and money 
to legislate on issues voters 
waited in lines for — climate 
change, labor rights, abortion 
rights, gun safety and more — 
regardless of how partisan they 
may appear. All they need is the 
political will. 

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 
EDITORIAL BOARD

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHANNON STOCKING 
AND KATE WEILAND
Co-Editors in Chief

QUIN ZAPOLI AND 
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Ammar Ahmad

Julian Barnard

Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Shubhum Giroti

Devon Hesano

Jack Kapcar

Sophia Lehrbaum

Olivia Mouradian

Siddharth Parmar

Rushabh Shah

Zhane Yamin

Nikhil Sharma

Lindsey Spencer

Evan Stern

Anna Trupiano

Jack Tumpowsky

Alex Yee

Quin Zapoli

JULIA VERKLAN 
MALONEY AND ZOE 
STORER 
Managing Editors

In Michigan, bipartisanship 
is not the answer

QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor

Opinion

Design by Sara Fang

